But you can't just give 100% of the rewards to the curator. It means then that everyone who can will build a bot to upvote everyone else's post at the 0 mark and get 100%. Turning every post into a self upvote opportunity. The author will see a $100 post and get $0 because it all goes to the curator.

I think as a method to provide a disincentive to authors self-upvoting at 0min this is a good solution.

The other alternatives:

• Upvote amount goes to curators, won't work as above
• Authors portion is disregarded, won't work because then when upvoting at 0min, you can upvote as much as you want and only the part awarded to the curator will be taken out of your VP.
• Feeding a flagging pool, as DJ suggested I think is a decent alternative.

I really don't think this is such a bad solution. And not because I've read posts from any one saying how great this new method is going to be. If you believe it or not, the only posts about this I've read are this one, and tcpolymath's post. I found out about it actually from holger80 who was reading the code in a github update and sent me a link to the github repo which I then read. So I've thought about this for probably a week or 2. and here's what I think.

If you believe the reward pool is currently being distributed fairly, or the the distribution algorithm can be (in the future) improved so as to actually reward good work, then putting more money into the reward pool isn't a bad thing. Everyone's post will now be worth slightly more.

In theory authors get 75% of the rewards, but because of the current bias in the voting system, authors actually get around 82%, (don't ask where I go that figure, I remember someone somewhere saying that stat for the sake of argument let's assume it's correct). So if people don't change their voting behavior that additional 7% will actually be redistributed to all the other posts. Of which 75% will go to authors (5.25%) and 25% will go to curators (1.75%). So All the big wigs with a large amount of SP will get 1.75% less than they were before. for a $1000 post that's $17.5 less. For a $20 post that's: $0.35.

I'd say it's a pretty fair system... in Theory.